Objectives:
• Become acquainted with copyright as a historic, cultural and economic paradigm and its value and pertinence to creative works.
• Explore the changing nature of copyright in the context of “Remix Culture” and the “Fifth World”
• Examine their own and others values and paradigms of ownership and authorship of cultural media.
• Evaluate the meanings of real and fake and examine their intersection with personal and cultural identity and authenticity
In the Ted Talk “Laws that Choke Creativity”, Lawrence Lessig discusses three technologies (talking machine, planes, and broadcasting) that forced a new understanding of culture. He defines this change as a “…culture where people participate in the creation and recreation of their culture”. He goes on to argue that recreation or “remixing” of previously created content is a form of creativity. This is especially true for the younger generation. I believe that the millennial generation has redefined a looser guideline as to what constitutes plagiarism and piracy. In your opinion, where is the line between a cultural recreation and the theft of intellectual property?
Reflection:
My post on the remixing of culture was informed by the Ted Talk and by my experience on the University Hearings Board. It was made very clear to me during my time at the university that academic misconduct that intellectual property is a very inclusive idea. For example, borrowing the ideas of someone you had a casual conversation with, without giving them appropriate credit, can be considered plagiarism. This idea has stunted my ability to see remixing as art because it has felt as though it is forbidden or wrong in some way.
This allowed me to better appreciate Lawrence Lessig’s Ted Talk. The clips he showed at the end reminded me of a recent Jon Stewart clip that encourages viewers to create “remixing” art by taking political adds and putting new-age music as the background. Partaking in this type of “remixing” better helped me view it as art because people were able to change the meaning, and interpretation of the video.
Learning Goals:
My goals for the future are to better understand the legal implications of “remixing” art. For example, recently a feminist toy company borrowed the song “Girls” by the Beastie Boys and remixed it with new lyrics that are more empowering for you girls. However, the Beastie Boys ended up suing the company for using their song and changing the meaning of it. While the trial has not yet concluded, I hope to one day better understand how the law affects artists using “remixing”.
Bibliography: